Standing Committee B

[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Clause 8 - Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 100, in 
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'(l) courts with the power to sentence a child to detention or remand a child in custody.'.—[Mr. Dawson]

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 112, in
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Youth Justice Board.'. 
No. 31, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 3, leave out from 'discharged' to 'the' in line 4 and insert 
 'in a manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and promoting'. 
No. 101, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In exercising their functions under this section courts must notify the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which the child is ordinarily resident of— 
 (a) any decision to sentence or remand a child to custody; 
 (b) any factors that could give rise to concern for the child's safety or well-being while in custody.'. 
No. 113, in 
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales shall ensure that— 
 (a) every child referred to them by a court for placement in custody is appropriately accommodated, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote their welfare, and 
 (b) where any child is not placed in the type of custodial accommodation considered appropriate under this section a record of the reasons for, and length of, such a placement is kept, and an annual report on such cases made to the Secretary of State; 
 (c) the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which any child in custody is ordinarily resident is notified of the details of their place of custody and any changes to their place of custody.'. 
No. 102, in 
clause 11, page 10, line 29, at end insert 
 '(1A) A Local Safeguarding Children Board established under section 10 will be responsible for monitoring the safety and well-being of children in custody.'.

Hilton Dawson: Welcome back to the Chair, Dame Marion.
 The amendments would bring the courts within the safeguarding framework, and require them to notify local safeguarding children boards of decisions to detain children in custody. I hope that the Youth 
 Justice Board could be required to notify LSCBs and to produce an annual report on children who are not placed in appropriate custodial accommodation. The Munby judgment in the judicial review of the case brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform decided that the Children Act 1989 applied to children in prison, but it is the local authority that has the duty under the Act to ensure such protection. Amendment No. 102 would ensure that the LSCB had oversight of all the children from its area who were in custody, whether they were in young offenders' institutions, youth treatment centres or local authority secure units. The reasons for the amendments are well known: there have been far too many tragic deaths of children and young people in custody. [Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. I am suspending the Committee for a few moments as we are having a problem opening the far doors, preventing the public from joining us. We will resume when the doors have been opened. I do apologise to everyone.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Hilton Dawson: The amendments would give significant duties to the courts, which have the power to put young people into custody, and to the Youth Justice Board, which is charged with the duty of finding them appropriate accommodation. They would ensure that the LSCB was notified of the whereabouts of those children so that it had an overview of their placement. We are discussing a situation in which young people are not only inappropriately placed in custody, but are inappropriately placed in the various institutions. Young offenders institutions offer a far lower degree of surveillance than youth treatment centres, which offer a far lower degree of care and surveillance than local authority secure units. Sadly, secure units are closing because of lack of use by the Youth Justice Board, and we are faced with the prospect of more and more extremely vulnerable children being placed in prisons which are not resourced and in which staff do not have the training to care for them.

Eleanor Laing: I want to speak to amendment No. 31. Subsection (2)(a) says that the bodies referred to in subsection (1) must ensure that
''their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children''. 
The words ''having regard to'' are too weak in this context, and our amendment would strengthen the provision. We do not disagree with the intention behind the subsection, but we feel that the wording should be stronger, and suggest that it should say that the functions must be discharged 
''in a manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children''. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 Mrs. Laing: I have made my point, which is simple and brief. The phrase ''having regard to'' is not strong enough for the instructions that we should like to give in this clause, and amendment No. 31 would strengthen and improve the clause.

Marion Roe: I call the Minister.

Roger Williams: rose—

Marion Roe: Order. The lifting of an eyebrow, a thumbs-up sign or a nod are not enough to catch my eye. You must stand in your place so that I can see you, because I am not telepathic.

Roger Williams: I apologise, Dame Marion. With all the confusion of the Division and one thing and another I was not quite as quick on my feet as I would normally be.
 The plight of young people in secure units causes us considerable concern. My hon. Friends and I have therefore added our names to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Young people are often put in secure units a long way from their home. Many of them will never have gone far from home, let alone gone into a strange environment without the support of their family and friends. When they are at that great distance and suffering stress and anxiety they will need more support than ever. 
 The amendments suggest that the court should have regard to the welfare of children and young people and that the LSCB is told where a child will be held so that it can give the necessary support when the child is released. There have been cases of young people being given a train ticket and told to get home. One such child had never used a train before. The amendments give the Minister an opportunity to ensure that young people and children in secure units get the support that they need so that their lives can be changed in a positive way. When they come out, they will not only be less likely to offend, but more likely to live a positive and full life.

Margaret Hodge: If I may, I will deal with the amendments in three blocks to try to make some sense of the group. Beginning with amendment No. 31, I must tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that the language here is a lawyer's paradise. She would give the agencies a duty to discharge their functions
''in a manner consistent with the objective'', 
whereas the clause requires the agencies to have regard to the need to safeguard children and their interests. From the publication of the Green Paper onwards, we have always said that the duty is not about giving agencies a function to safeguard and promote 
 children's welfare and interests; its purpose is to ensure that agencies exercise their primary function in a way that recognises and takes account of the need to safeguard and promote children's welfare and interests. It is important to recognise that all the agencies covered by the duties under clause 8 have their own functions. We talked about that before lunch. A change in the wording such as the hon. Lady proposes would mean that agencies' attempts to safeguard children compromised their ability to fulfil their primary purpose. 
 Let us imagine, for instance, that police officers investigated and arrested someone who had committed a crime of fraud. That person might be a loving parent; indeed, one might argue that the fraudulent activity led to more income in the household, thereby enhancing the children's quality of life. Amendment No. 31 would imply that the responsibilities of the police with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare and well-being of children were equal to their responsibilities as law enforcers, so they would not be able to carry out their function as policemen and women. That is why the clause is worded as it is. 
 I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that we already have a robust legislative framework to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and that sits in conjunction with clause 8. Under the Children Act 1989, for example, local authorities have a specific legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. In particular, social services departments have a duty to make inquiries if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. Other local authority services, such as education, housing and health, have a duty to assist social services. The police have a legal duty to investigate criminal offences committed against children, and such investigations should be carried out sensitively, thoroughly and professionally. The 1989 Act gives the police powers to take emergency action to protect children from suffering significant harm. 
 We have put much of that information together in two publications: ''Working together to safeguard children'' and the ''Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families''. Indeed, if the hon. Lady looks back at Lord Laming's report, she will find that he said that the legislative framework for protecting children is basically sound. The weaknesses are in the way in which it is interpreted and implemented, and we are attempting to address those problems through the Bill. 
 The clause adds to the framework for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of vulnerable children by taking the more proactive approach that much of what we are discussing is about. We do not want to compromise the ability of agencies to carry out their primary duties and functions. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Lady will be happy not to press her amendment. 
 I now turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and Liberal Democrat Members. Amendments Nos. 100 
 and 101 would extend the duty in the clause to courts with the power to sentence a child to detention or remand a child in custody and to the Youth Justice Board. We share the aim of the amendment: to ensure, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) said, that young people in custody are accommodated in an appropriate setting, with full account taken of all the issues that confront those young people, particularly the most vulnerable. However, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre because we do not agree that the Bill is the best way to achieve that. 
 The Youth Justice Board, for instance, has a very difficult job. It has to match the available places in secure accommodation with the young people referred to it by the courts. In doing that, it has to consider many issues, including the young person's age, special needs, closeness to home—which is very important—and any risk of harm. Good decisions can be made only by taking account of all relevant factors, and the risk with amendment No. 113 is that the placement would be viewed in isolation. 
 Let me give another example. Closeness to home is an important issue—we all agree that it is better that a young person serving a custodial sentence should held be as close to home as possible. However, in the instance of a 17-year-old who has been convicted of a particular serious offence of violence, the institution closest to him may have a number of younger children who are more vulnerable and who have not committed the same sort of offence. Placing him in that secure accommodation may not be appropriate for the 12, 13 and 14-year-olds who are already in it. Putting a duty on the Youth Justice Board around a specific child would prevent it from having a wider view of how to operate. 
 Two points may help my hon. Friend. One is that youth offending teams are covered by clause 7 duties to co-operate and they are performance managed by the Youth Justice Board, which also sets their policy. That provides one close link into the board. Secondly, simply as a matter of practice, I meet the board regularly. Indeed, I am meeting the whole board in November. We work extremely closely together, and the intent behind the resolutions is shared by all the organisations and agencies for which I have responsibility, including the Youth Justice Board.

Hilton Dawson: I cannot quite understand my right hon. Friend's point. I do not see why a duty to notify a local safeguarding children board about a placement that the Youth Justice Board deems to be less than satisfactory impedes in any way its duty to find a placement or how it deals with the issues that she mentioned.

Margaret Hodge: I shall come to those amendments in a minute. I was dealing with those that would place duties on the Youth Justice Board with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
 The critical issue is to ensure that all secure accommodation is safe, and clause 8 already applies to youth offending institutions, secure training centres and, via local authorities, to local authority secure children's homes, although I accept that some of them are closing as the Youth Justice Board changes where it places young people. As such, those institutions will need to make arrangements to ensure that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I do not believe that the amendments would usefully add to that existing duty. 
 I turn now to the amendments on asking the local safeguarding children board to monitor the well-being of children in custody. My hon. Friend alluded to that in his intervention. We have already included in the Bill a duty on secure institutions to make arrangements so that they discharge their functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That means that they will need to monitor the safety and well-being of children in custody. The role of the local safeguarding children board is not one of monitoring individual cases. Like its predecessor, the area child protection committee, its role is to look at broader strategic issues. If we gave it the duty to examine and monitor individual cases in relation to any other duties in the Bill, we would take it away from the important task that it is given in the Bill: to focus on the strategic level. That could also lead to duplication between the role of the LSCB and partner agencies, which could in turn lead to neither taking responsibility and the danger of children falling through the net.

Andrew Turner: Who then is responsible? If the area child protection committee is responsible for the strategy, who is responsible for the individual?

Margaret Hodge: The individual institutions and the bodies to which they are accountable. We are strengthening them.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful for that answer because it contradicts what I was told. After a child had been sent around like a parcel between different organisations, I was eventually told by several local organisations that the case should be referred to the area child protection committee. The child concerned was playing truant from school, was making allegations of rape and was, by the way, a fostered child. It appeared to me that the child had not been dealt with adequately by the child and adolescent mental health service or by social services. The conclusion was that the case should be referred to superintendent so-and-so, because he is the chairman of the area child protection committee. I am not saying that the Minister is wrong, but I am interested in her evidence that what I was told was wrong.

Margaret Hodge: I hate to make a judgment without having seen the details of an individual case. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I will try to help him clarify it. However, the suggestion that the duties do not fall on properly accountable bodies is false. One of
 the purposes of clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill is to achieve a much better understanding of the duty to co-operate and to safeguard and promote child welfare so that, if our arrangements work effectively, cases in which agencies refuse to take responsibility—as in the story that the hon. Gentleman told—should not recur in future. Having a lead professional involved should also support that.
 I said that the LSCB would operate at a strategic level to facilitate co-ordination between the agencies involved, while providing guidance and supervision to ensure that they are effective in carrying out their collective responsibilities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That is why we think that it is an appropriate mechanism to which people should report. That does not underplay the importance of the issues that hon. Members have raised—I am pleased that they have done so. I hope that I have given them confidence that, by the way in which we have handled the provisions and the duties that have been given to particular bodies, we have covered their concerns.

Eleanor Laing: I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of the precise wording in the lawyer's paradise of amendment No. 31 and, much as I enjoy that lawyer's paradise, I accept her explanation.

Hilton Dawson: I am interested in the way that the clause and the helpful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister have developed the ideas of the Munby judgment. Munby, in relation to the judicial review brought by the Howard league, said that the Children Act applied to children in prison but not to the institution. It seems, given the duty that will be imposed to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare, that this Children Bill, when enacted, will apply to children in prison. What are the implications of that for the detail of the way that children will be looked after in prison? Young offenders institutions and secure treatment centres have such poor staffing ratios and facilities and an ethos that is in many ways more appropriate to the prison system than to institutions that care for children that they are inimical to the welfare of the children in them. However, I suspect that that is an argument for another day.
 Early in the debate of this Bill, my right hon. Friend predicted that the Children's Commissioner would want to examine the situation of children in custody, and I think—or at least hope—that she has never spoken a truer word. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 8, page 7, line 4, after 'children', insert 'and to prevent bullying'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 66, in
clause 8, page 7, line 10, at end insert
 ', save that the arrangements required by that section to be made for the safeguarding and promotion of the welfare of children shall include the duty to prevent bullying.'. 
No. 63, in 
clause 23, page 18, line 4, after 'children', insert 'and to prevent bullying'. 
No. 64, in 
clause 23, page 18, line 10, at end insert 
 ', save that the arrangements required by that section to be made for the safeguarding and promotion of the welfare of children shall include the duty to prevent bullying.'.

Hilton Dawson: Again, I will try to be brief because of the time pressure. At the end of this morning's sitting, I had the pleasure of meeting a group of young people from Lancaster and Morecambe, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister. I discussed with them what we would be talking about this afternoon and asked for their views on bullying. It is instructive that children and young people regard bullying as an issue of special significance and concern. I was told that it was one of the biggest issues to them and every one of the 10 young people we met had experience of it. Other remarks that came up were that ''most teachers do not realise what bullying can do to its victims'', and that ''children are not believed when they report bullying in many places.''
 Some schools deal with bullying effectively, because they take it more seriously and are prepared to exclude young people at particular stages in the process. However, many of the young peoples' comments were tied up with a culture that we will have to challenge or we will find it difficult to change. Frankly, throughout our public service, children are not given the respect that they deserve; they are not listened to effectively and clearly, and their concerns are not responded to appropriately. 
 This group of amendments attempts to single out the prevention of bullying, giving it a singular importance in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. We know that it is a serious issue from the frequent suicides and attempted suicides. Although being bullied, being a bully and witnessing bullying can be common childhood events, they can also result in lower self-esteem, patterns of behaviour and avoidance of social interactions, which can create problems for people throughout their lives. It is not only young people from Lancaster and Morecambe who say that bullying is an important issue—31,000 children contacted ChildLine in the past year to report concerns. It is by far the biggest issue that children report. 
 There is no doubt that the Government are doing a lot to deal with bullying. There is a huge amount of guidance, there are anti-bullying websites and anti-bullying specialists in every region. There is a duty on schools to develop anti-bullying policies, and work is done in young offenders institutions to address the horrendous bullying that young people experience there. However, what comes back time and again is that the response is patchy—it is good when it is taken on by individual schools, teachers or workers, but that does not happen universally across the board. That 
 serious issue is not dealt with effectively, and the amendment is an attempt to ensure that it is dealt with effectively. 
 I suspect that the amendment will make as much progress as others that have been tabled to the Bill, but the issue will not go away. It will be a huge issue for the Children's Commissioner, and it is already an issue for every Member of Parliament. All hon. Members receive reports of bullying in schools and institutions in their constituencies, and if we are going to listen effectively to children and young people, we will hear much more about bullying. We should all heed the Government's best advice on bullying: the victims of bullying should not suffer in silence; they should speak out about it.

Hywel Williams: I rise to support the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, as part of democracy week, I visited Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle in my constituency; I missed the later part of this morning's sitting as I was meeting young people from Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen, which is also in my constituency. Anyone who talks to young people knows that it would be difficult to underestimate the scourge of bullying in the lives of children and young people. I discovered from statistics that I came across in preparing for the Committee that one in 10 primary schoolchildren and 4 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren suffer from bullying, and that is just the recorded numbers.
 Bullying takes a variety of forms, both physical and psychological. I was an approved social worker under the Mental Health Act 1983 and I know from my experience how bullying can blight people's later lives; it casts a shadow over the adult. We can truly say in that respect that the child is father to the man. We know, too, that being bullied often leads to the bullied people themselves becoming bullies. I know that is so from experience in my school career. Physical assaults can precipitate bullying, and the psychological pressure on children can be extreme, ranging from name calling or ignoring the child to racial abuse.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some children are particularly vulnerable to bullying? Is he aware that the National Assembly for Wales recommended that Gypsy and Traveller children should be mentioned specifically in bullying policies?

Hilton Dawson: I accept the hon. Lady's point entirely. I agree with her that Traveller and Gypsy children are in a uniquely vulnerable position because of the stigmatising and stereotyping of their parents' lifestyles. Another, less obvious, example is that of the rural-urban split in some schools. I was a town boy but, at school, kids from the country used to suffer all kinds of abuse because they were not townies.
 The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the effect of bullying on the child's self-esteem, and it certainly affects the child's ability to learn, which has an effect on the school's success or otherwise. The amendments draw attention to the issue, and those that apply to Wales are very important to me; they 
 single out bullying as a particular issue and I support them. No hon. Member would tolerate bullying in the workplace and I see no reason why it should be tolerated in schools.

Margaret Hodge: In the interests of brevity, I will not indulge in a discourse on bullying. I will simply say that this is the biggest issue that is raised with me by most children. When hon. Members talk about it, they rightly refer to something that is vitally important to every child and young person. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said about the patchy implementation of our policies on bullying. However, one does not achieve change simply by adding a few words on the face of a Bill. One has to work with these people and organisations—be they schools, youth clubs, park attendants, the police service—to instil in them an intolerance of bullying.
 We also have to work with children and young people themselves so that they understand that their behaviour with their peer group matters and can have a terrible and lasting impact on others. We are all at one on the intent of the amendment. However, unsurprisingly perhaps to my hon. Friend, I do not think that it is either helpful or necessary to add these amendments to the Bill. When we place legislative duties on our services, we must be clear about what we expect of them. Some of the agencies listed in clauses 8 and 23—probation boards, for example—do not have a significant role to play in relation to preventing bullying. I am not sure what a duty to have regard to the need to prevent bullying would mean in practice for such agencies. 
 If we list one issue that is of huge importance to children and young people, the inevitable question is what should one add to the list. One ends up in great difficulty. All hon. Members will have noticed that the Government are making terrific efforts and working closely with ChildLine and others to try to tackle bullying. The Anti-Bullying Alliance is a good move forward. It brings all the agencies and players together. We should work through that to try to diminish bullying, if not to eradicate it. Similarly the Prison Service is required to ensure that it does its best to eliminate bullying in secure establishments where it is often most extreme. I accept the sentiment, but reject the necessity for the amendment and so I ask my hon. Friend Member to withdraw it.

Hilton Dawson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 The Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that it was agreed this morning to move consideration of clause 9 until after consideration of clause 36.

Clause 10 - Establishment of LSCBs

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 10, page 9, line 41, after 'Service', insert 'or its successor body'.
 I commend this amendment to the Committee. It simply seeks to amend subsection (3)(h). Subsection (3) currently reads: 
 ''For the purposes of this section each of the following is a Board partner of a children's services authority in England—''. 
The eighth organisation mentioned in paragraph (h) is the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. It is widely recognised that that organisation does not work as well as it should. I put the point mildly. I would go much further and say that CAFCASS is not doing the job that it should do, but this is neither the time nor place to go into that in great detail.

Hilton Dawson: Given that CAFCASS has just changed its chairman, its entire board and its chief executive, is not the hon. Lady a little premature in that judgment?

Eleanor Laing: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I was just coming to that point. We have discussed CAFCASS in other forums in the House in the past few months, and there has been a good report into its workings, which we all welcome. I sincerely hope that, given the new arrangements that he has mentioned, CAFCASS will work more efficiently and effectively in the future.
 The concept of CAFCASS is good, and it ought to be providing a necessary service to the families and children who are much in need of it. I hope that it improves and that, in six months or a year, we will say, ''Oh good, CAFCASS is doing this; it is all working really well''; but it might not. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment simply to insert after the reference to CAFCASS the words ''or its successor body''. Quite simply, if there is no change to CAFCASS in the future, and it is still there, including those words in the Bill will have done no harm, because they will come into operation only if CAFCASS is changed or replaced with another body. It makes sense to include those words now so that should that change occur in the future, this provision will still continue to work as we want it to. The point is that we thoroughly support the inclusion of CAFCASS in the list of board partners. It is essential that it should be there, but if there is no CAFCASS, we want to ensure that whatever is in its place continues with that important role.

Margaret Hodge: That was an interesting contribution, because the hon. Lady's colleague, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), has said elsewhere that she intends to abolish CAFCASS. I think that that is badly conceived, and I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the concept is a good one. If we can agree on that, we then need to try to ensure that it works properly. I accept entirely the criticisms from the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which we discussed in debate and which said that there was massive room for improvement.

Eleanor Laing: I just want to make it clear that I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, who elsewhere debated that matter with the Minister this morning. I sincerely hope that CAFCASS will improve, but if it does not, my right hon. Friend is right to reserve our wish to change it completely.

Margaret Hodge: That is a semi U-turn, if I may say so. I agree with the hon. Lady in that if CAFCASS does not work, we need to think again, and I agree—I hope she takes on board that I am agreeing with her—that the concept is a good one. We are attempting to put into effect a whole set of changes that will make the practice one that children deserve, whether they are in private or public law cases. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, we now have a new chair for CAFCASS, a new board and a new chief executive, and why I identified, in a tight spending environment, an additional £12 million, which has gone to CAFCASS to support its efforts. It will now take a year or two to see a real step change in performance. We have to give it time to bed down under the new structure. We have put all the building blocks in place, and it is now up to everyone to deliver. For heaven's sake, let us not take a decision to abolish CAFCASS and cause disruption in the lives of children, which is how I interpret the suggestion that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead made when she was speaking elsewhere.
 The amendment is not necessary, and it would be a matter for primary legislation were CAFCASS ever to be abolished. That would be the place for such a proposal.

Eleanor Laing: I accept what the Minister has said. Under the circumstances, I will not force a vote on the issue. I have made my point strongly enough, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in
clause 10, page 9, line 45, at end insert—
'(k) a representative of the faith communities in the area of the authority, appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
 I tabled this amendment because the spiritual welfare of children did not seem adequately covered—indeed, there is no reference to it in the Bill. I assume that it is included in the general definition of the welfare of children—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. However, just as, until recently, someone on local education authorities represented faith communities, there needs to be someone on the safeguarding children boards to take responsibility for representing faith communities and the spiritual welfare of children. 
 The amendment would insert a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations. I do not lightly propose additional powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations, and had I been able to think of a better method I would have suggested it.

Annette Brooke: It has occurred to me, following the previous discussion about the importance of parents, that spiritual values are the responsibility of parents.

Andrew Turner: I would agree with that, and were parents represented on local safeguarding children boards, I would be happier, but they are not. The spiritual welfare of children should be given at least an equivalent level of representation as the chief officer of police, who I assume is responsible for their criminal welfare, the youth offending team, which is again responsible for their criminal welfare, the local probation board, which is responsible for correcting their criminal welfare, and the strategic health authority, primary care trust and NHS trust, which are responsible for their health. Those responsibilities are all also the responsibility of the parents and no one denies that. The fact that they are the responsibility of the parents does not mean that they should be excluded from representation on the local safeguarding children board.
 I am a little surprised, given that spiritual development is included in the responsibility of schools, that spiritual welfare is not included or represented in the Bill. That is why I tabled the amendment.

Margaret Hodge: We must remember that this body is probably one of the most important that we will establish through the Bill. It will have overarching responsibility for ensuring that the best policies and practices are in place in every local area to stop children dying. It is not just a question of who sits round the table—important though that is—but of the job that they do. We must occasionally think about that context.
 I recognise that there are many areas where faith communities have an important contribution to make to children's welfare. In some areas, representatives of faith communities sit on the ACPCs, which the local safeguarding children boards will replace. Nothing in this legislation would prevent a local safeguarding children board from inviting a representative from the faith community to sit on it. We are setting down those representatives who must be partners around the table if the board is to get on with the job of ensuring that everything is in place to stop children dying. There should not be a compulsion for faith communities to be represented. The clause as it stands does not prevent individual people from responding to their locality and inviting faith communities. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner: That was a medium-level assurance, rather than a reassurance. The area child protection committees already have representatives of faith communities, so one wonders what damage they are doing that they should be excluded from the local safeguarding children boards.
 I appreciate that there may be further opportunities to investigate the representation of faith communities, but I should like the Minister to indicate at least that the welfare of children as covered by the Bill includes their spiritual as well as physical welfare. I wonder whether she could, by semaphore or other means, communicate that before I conclude my remarks on the amendment. I notice that she is looking round for inspiration, but it does not seem to have struck. If she sits still for long enough, a thunderbolt will demonstrate which side of the amendment she should be on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in
clause 10, page 10, line 12, after 'establishment', insert 'and operation'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the Government amendment No. 151.

Margaret Hodge: We tabled these amendments to clarify our policy on local safeguarding children boards. It has always been our intention that all the board partners listed in subsection (3) and clause 25(3) should have an ongoing responsibility to work together, not just to set up the board, and to meet the objectives that we have set for the LSCB in clauses 11 and 26—to co-ordinate and ensure the effectiveness of what is done by each partner in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
 Concerns were raised with us when we took the propositions to regional seminars and talked about the role of the boards. We tabled these amendments to ensure that the role is clear and that the Bill sends out a strong message to all partners, not just local authorities, that they will all need to contribute to and participate in LSCBs. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in
clause 10, page 10, line 16, at end insert—
 '(7A) The chairman of the Local Safeguarding Children Board shall be appointed by the children's services authority.'.
 Once again, we seek to improve what is an important clause that we thoroughly support. We are concerned to ensure that with so many bodies being involved—rightly so, as we want a wide spectrum of bodies to be involved in the boards—the close link is kept between the board and the children's services authority. 
 The Green Paper ''Every child matters'' stated in paragraph 5.25: 
 ''We expect that they''— 
the boards— 
''will be chaired by the Director of Children's Services.''
We entirely support that, but there is no provision for it in the Bill. After consultation, the ''Every child matters: next steps'' report said: 
 ''We would expect the Director of Children's Services to chair the Board unless it is considered more appropriate locally to have an independent chair. The Director of Children's Services will have overall accountability to the Local Authority which is ultimately responsible for ensuring adequate safeguarding arrangements.'' 
The lines of communication will not be as strong and precise if there is no direct link between the local authority, the children's services authority, the director of children's services and the local safeguarding children board.

Roger Williams: Surely the effect of the amendment would not be that the director of children's services would automatically have overall accountability to the local authority but that the children's services authority could appoint a chairman. Surely the children's services authority would have the opportunity to appoint someone who is independent, so the link to which the hon. Lady refers might not be made.

Eleanor Laing: The omission or error that the hon. Gentleman has just described is more likely to occur under the Bill as it stands, because our amendment would ensure that the children's services authority appointed the chairman. That chairman might or might not be the director of children's services, but if the appointment is made by the children's services authority, it is more likely to be someone who, if he or she is not the director of children's services, would work closely with the director. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he merely emphasises my point for me.
 Again, we do not want to destroy or to inhibit in any way the intention of the clause: we merely wish to strengthen it.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment would permit the local children's services authority to appoint the lead member to chair the local safeguarding children board?

Eleanor Laing: Yes. Again, that is a very good point, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it.
 This might be a point on which the Committee can totally agree, because I cannot see any argument against the chairman of the LSCB being appointed by the children's services authority. By whom else should that appointment be made?

Margaret Hodge: There are three elements to this. As I read the amendment, it also relates to whether a chairman should be appointed at all. We believe that it is implicit that a board needs a chairman, but we are happy with the suggestion that that is what should occur and will take that on board in the regulations.
 The second question is who should appoint the chairman. The hon. Lady is right that policy has moved on. We published the Green Paper and consulted people, a number of whom talked to us 
 about who should chair the LSCB. Some of the ACPCs currently have an independent chairman, and children's charities in particular were keen that we should not set in stone in legislation the inability of a board to choose for itself who should be the chairman. In some cases, the chairman could be independent. We believe that it will probably be the director of children's services, but we should leave flexibility to the board to select its own chairman. Having said that, that in no way dilutes the accountability of the director of children's services for the operation of that board. 
 The director of children's services will have clear accountability, both in law and in the regulations that we will issue to support this part of the Bill, for the way in which that board operates. The question whether he or she should chair it should be left to the discretion of the board.

Eleanor Laing: I understand what the Minister is saying, but I have discussed this matter at some length with the relevant local authority personalities in my area, and my concern is that if we are saying that the buck must stop somewhere—the whole purpose of the Bill—and that it must be with the director of children's services, that position would be undermined if the local safeguarding children board could somehow appoint someone other than the director to chair the board. In a way, it makes it more difficult for the director of children's services to take on their enormous responsibilities if some of the power and influence of either being or appointing the chairman of the LSCB is taken away from them. My concern is that we are putting an enormous amount of responsibility on the director. We ought to give them enough power to exercise that responsibility to the best of their ability.

Margaret Hodge: That is the hon. Lady's view, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. The issue for us as parliamentarians making the law is whether we should prescribe to local authorities how they determine the chairmanship of the board or leave it to local flexibility. In representations that we have received from children's charities and others, but clearly not from local government, as in this instance it would want to control the appointment, they have simply asked for the flexibility to determine the chair locally. In my view, the chair will mainly be the director of children's services, but it would be wrong for us to prescribe nationally, and that in no way detracts from the director's accountability and responsibility.

Eleanor Laing: I accept that the Minister says what she says in good faith, but I still have some considerable reservations about the matter, so I would not like to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment; I would like the question to be put to the Committee.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Functions and procedure of LSCBs

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in
clause 11, page 10, line 27, after 'children', insert
'in the context of their families or otherwise.'.
 Once again, we seek to strengthen the provisions of a clause that we support. The amendment would aim to ensure that promoting the welfare of children takes place in the context of their families. Our concern is that, quite rightly, a large number of bodies are involved in these matters and that the LSCB has a great many different interests involved in it. The one thing that has been missing in the discussion of the last few clauses is the role of the family. Although I support the good work done by social services departments, children's charities, all the other organisations mentioned in clause 10 and many other voluntary bodies besides, I believe the Bill should say explicitly that a child's family should be part of the safeguarding and welfare of that child.

Andrew Turner: I support the amendment, and want to do so by referring to the story of a child in my constituency, whom, for obvious reasons, I shall not name. The child is in the care of the local authority, is fostered, and has a family. His uncle and aunt sought to obtain information about the child's schooling. They knew that he was not attending school as he should have been, because he came to see them in school hours. The local authority very slowly began to take an interest in what they were saying, and the child moved foster parents and was sent to another school.
 I regret to say that little was done by the first school or by the second school to establish that the child attended school on a regular basis. It was concluded that he was unsuitable for the full national curriculum, so some of his time was put outside mainstream schooling. The uncle and aunt then came to me and said that the process was not working. I have had the devil's own job getting the local authority to take the uncle and aunt seriously as people who may be interested in the child's welfare. It culminated in a letter that arrived only yesterday from the director of children's services, which said that the case was 
 nothing to do with me because I did not have the authority of the school, the parents, the local education authority or the child to raise the matter with them. I accept that the Minister is hoping to do something about that issue—indeed, I thought that Mr. Speaker had already done something about it, and that regulations had been passed to deal with it. That is why I believe it to be so important to include those words in the Bill. 
 As we know, families come in all shapes and sizes, but many of them, even at some distance from the natural parents, have a great interest in and great care for the welfare of the children in their family. That should be recognised in the procedures adopted by social services and children's authorities.

Margaret Hodge: We have tabled amendments to rectify the position, which limits our ability to represent our constituents properly. I passionately believe that we have failed to look after children in a whole range of ways. We will not have a great discourse on that today, although we may later in our proceedings. The amendment is not necessarily the correct mechanism for getting things right, but all of us, collectively in society, have failed the most vulnerable children, for whom we are the corporate parent. We must do better. To do otherwise is not good enough for our children.
 I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the importance of the family—again, we discussed that in a previous Committee sitting—but the amendment is unnecessary. We all acknowledge the primary role of parents in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The principle that a child's family must be taken into account when decisions are made about safeguarding that child and promoting his or her welfare—for the vast majority of children, living with their families is the best way of doing that—is clearly established. It will be a clear consideration for all the LSCBs involved in safeguarding children and promoting their welfare. It does not need to be specified in legislation. 
 In the Children Act 1989, there is a duty on local authorities to 
''safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.'' 
That enshrines in legislation the principle that, as a general rule, children are best off living with their families, and ensures that local authorities are required to support that principle unless their duty to safeguard is inconsistent with the child's remaining with the family. We already have guidance that sets out the practice that arises from that principle, and instructs agencies to consider the parents' capacity to provide care and the environment in which care is provided. That guidance is included in the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. 
 We accepted representations made in another place that parents were not sufficiently mentioned in the Bill and that their role was not sufficiently highlighted, and we made the amendment to clause 7, which I hope satisfies the hon. Lady's desire. It might give her further comfort to know that we will reiterate those 
 messages in the guidance that we issue on LSCBs under clause 13. We will make it clear that the views of service users—children, young people, and their parents, carers and families—should be taken into account in developing services and strategies for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local area.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has referred to clause 7(3) on a number of occasions. I assume that she is saying that, notwithstanding that it says ''under this section'', the subsection has a much wider application?

Margaret Hodge: Clause 7 is a central part of the Bill because it deals with the duty of co-operation. How that duty is defined is dealt with in many of the remaining clauses. Clauses 7 and 8 are key: they deal with the duty to co-operate and the duty to safeguard, which then flow into many of the other clauses. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will feel it right to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: Although I do not want to take up more of the Committee's time than is necessary, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and I feel strongly about the point about families. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and in particular to what she said about the Children Act and the words in that Act that bring in families. Under our amendment the Bill would be more consistent with the Children Act than it is at present. We are all familiar with cases in our constituencies in which grandparents, close aunts and uncles, or older brothers and sisters, are trying their best to help to promote the welfare of children and to safeguard them. They find that they have no locus to do so because all sorts of other bodies are included in legislation, but not members of a child's family. I must insist on pressing the amendment to a Division.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 220, in
clause 11, page 10, line 29, at end insert—
'(c) to have due regard for internet safety for children.'.
 It should be obvious that this is a probing amendment, but it was tabled with great sincerity. I am honoured to have joined the Home Office taskforce on internet safety for children. I am a very new member, but at the one meeting I have attended I picked up the fact that there is concern about how the issue would be dealt with with the local safeguarding board. It may need to be dealt with in regulations, but if we do not discuss this incredibly important matter while discussing the Bill it could be overlooked. It is an area in which joined-up thinking across different Departments is vital. I accept that the local police are involved on the safeguarding board, but as we know from the sort of work done by the taskforce, much of it comes from national level. 
 I am raising the matter to ask the Minister what consideration she will give to address one of the most serious issues facing our children today. I cannot believe that the Bill does not mention it. There may be other ramifications and I would be pleased to hear that she is in discussion with her fellow Ministers, particularly those in the Home Office.

Margaret Hodge: I am pleased that this probing amendment has been tabled, because the matter is of growing concern. Technology is moving faster than probably any of us here can keep up with and children are certainly better at it than we are. It offers them enormous opportunities—we should not diminish those—but there are also threats to their safety which we must take seriously. I work extremely closely with my colleagues in the Home Office, who lead on the matter, to ensure that, collectively throughout the Government, we take every possible step to try to tackle each risk as it arises.
 As the technology changes, we must constantly rethink our policies. It is a responsibility for Government, the industry and parents. That is the triangle of interest and I am delighted that the hon. Lady is a member of the working party, which is doing a good and important job. 
 However, do we need the amendment? The existing objectives for local safeguarding children boards are wide enough to enable them to focus on improving internet safety, if they decide that that is a local priority. If we were to accept the amendment, we would be requiring boards to give it higher priority than other issues that might be of greater importance locally. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that if the boards are to work effectively it is crucial for them to be able to respond to local circumstances and local priorities, and that we should not try to micro-manage them, either from Whitehall or from Parliament. While I acknowledge the importance of the issue and accept the intent of the amendment, I ask her to withdraw it. It is not properly placed and might distort priorities in some areas.

Annette Brooke: I am not at all unhappy about withdrawing the amendment, as I am sure that the Minister has gathered. My main purpose was to have the matter discussed and to receive reassurance that it will be picked up in guidance. Perhaps, between now and Report, the taskforce will make further
 recommendations that are pertinent to the local safeguarding boards. We should consider measures that can be implemented both nationally and locally.
 I take on board the Minister's comment about opportunity. I have been asked many times whether I think the internet is a bad thing. I would never say that. However, we have to be wary of dangers that cannot even be envisaged now, because the internet is changing so rapidly. I thank the Minister for her comments and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Director of children's services

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 14, page 11, line 21, leave out 'an' and insert 'a senior'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in
clause 14, page 11, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Any appointment under subsection (1) shall be made after a process involving open competition.'. 
No. 67, in 
clause 14, page 12, line 11, leave out subsection (5). 
No. 68, in 
clause 14, page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (6). 
No. 229, in 
clause 14, page 12, line 19, at end insert 
 'which guidance may cover the process of appointment of a director of children's services.'.

Eleanor Laing: We rehearsed the arguments only a few moments ago, under clause 10, regarding the concern that my colleagues and I have that there should be an adequate structure to support the intention that the buck stops here. Any person who is given the heavy responsibility that we are placing on a person in this context should be a senior officer. Under the amendment, a children's services authority in England
''may, and with effect from the appointed day must, appoint a senior officer'' 
for the after-mentioned purposes. Having rehearsed the argument under clause 10, I will not take up the Committee's time by repeating it.

Hilton Dawson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 67 and 68. We are embarking on a process of massive cultural change. We are looking to local authorities to transform children's lives by centring their services on children's needs; listening to children effectively; building their services around children and families; breaking down the barriers between organisations, institutions and professions; and developing a common core of practice with children. I simply do not believe that someone who takes on the responsibilities of a director of children's services can be expected to
 have any other role. I would distrust the motives of some colleagues in local government who would want to urge that on my right hon. Friend.
 I have great respect for local authorities—I worked for one for 15 years and was a councillor in another for 10—but they can be part of the problem, and part of the past from which we want to move; they can be one of the major institutions that we want to change. I do not see how they can expect someone who has other responsibilities to do the job properly. I would prefer local authorities that sought to appoint a director of children's services to take on other aspects of the work, and would question both the seriousness with which they approach the task and the degree to which they actually want to change. 
 I was with colleagues one night last week when we met representatives of primary care trusts, which we would all acknowledge as key players. We talked to chief executives and chairs of primary care trusts, some of whom had been involved in the children's trust pilot. I ended up defending local education authorities, which was quite an unusual position for me. The distrust and scepticism, nay cynicism, around the table that those key partners—experienced, professional people who want to do an excellent job for children—had about the role and culture of local education authorities was evident. Their suspicions about the possibility, nay probability, of children's services directors coming directly from local education authorities and bringing that cultural background into a service that needs to build participation and integration, centre it on children and families and perhaps move a long way from the goals and responsibilities that the typical LEA has had, was instructive. 
 I see no reason for subsections (5) and (6) and hope that they can be deleted.

Andrew Turner: I agree with the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman: we are talking about a massive cultural change. I endorse his view that a director of education is not necessarily the appropriate person to take on the responsibilities in question. I am sorry that that the social work profession appears to be so suspicious of the education establishment. I share that suspicion, but if the hon. Gentleman's remarks may be taken as evidence, it appears that those concerned especially lack confidence.

Hilton Dawson: Just to clarify, the people concerned were health professionals.

Andrew Turner: Thank you.
 In the interests of not having a clause stand part debate, perhaps I may go slightly outside the amendment. I am concerned that the children's social services role, as an advocate for children, may be diminished by being subsumed into the children's services role, which is dominated by education. An example is children with special educational needs. The education service may be constrained by budgets and concerned to devolve as much as it can to schools, whereas a social worker may recognise that the 
 individual needs of such a child are not being met, and may in the past have been an advocate for them, right up to the level of director of social services against director of education. I fear that we might lose that type of service as a result of creating unified departments. It would of course be nice if everyone had regard to the needs of each child, but there are, as the Minister knows, considerable competing demands on local education authorities, for example to devolve money to schools. 
 That said, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that allowing LEAs to appoint a director of children's services who has other responsibilities would be dangerous. After all, there are some very small LEAs; mine is small and there are many smaller. I suspect that it would be unreasonable to expect the City of London corporation or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, for example, to appoint a head of children's services who has no other responsibilities. Indeed, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for a chief executive also to be appointed the director of children's services, so although the hon. Gentleman has developed an interesting aspect of the debate, I am not willing to support his amendments. 
 Instead, I draw the Minister's attention to amendments Nos. 228 and 229, which would require the director of children's services to be appointed by a process of ''open competition'' and not merely slipped into the post because that was the most convenient thing to do with a director that the local authority already had. Again, I know it is dangerous to be anecdotal and even more dangerous to legislate according to what happens in one or two London boroughs, and I am sure the Minister does not want to legislate as a result of what happens on the Isle of Wight, but I just want to tell her how my local director of children's services was appointed. He was appointed without public advertisement and without competition from among the four existing directors. He was the director of education. How did he get that job? He was appointed without public advertisement and without open competition from among people within the authority who chose to apply for that job, having been at the time the deputy director of education. Before I say how he got that job, let me explain that I was told by the leader of the council that it was her intention when she appointed him deputy director of education that he should become director of education. How did he get the job of deputy director? He was appointed without open advertisement and without open competition from I know not where; I know that he was a head teacher in my constituency. 
 That is not an appropriate way to appoint to any of those jobs and certainly not to a job of the importance and magnitude that we are discussing. It may be felt that I am making a political point against the Liberal Democrats who lead my local authority. I am not alone in doing that: the chairman of the early years and child care development partnership resigned because she felt that the massive cultural change that was necessary to implement the Bill could not be achieved 
 when someone who happened to be available in another job was simply slipped in. This is nothing personal against the officer, although it is certainly a criticism of the local authority. Will the Minister insist that officers of this importance be appointed through a proper and open process that gets the best man for the job?

Margaret Hodge: I shall not hold hon. Members up because I know that we want to make progress, but it is an irony of this Committee that many contributions from Opposition Members—certainly the Conservatives, and to some extent the Liberal Democrats—have tended to show a centralist strand of thinking, whereas we are the great decentralisers on this. They are the Stalinists, we are new Labour decentralisers. That is particularly interesting in the context of exchanges in the Chamber, in which we are often accused of centralising. All these amendments are about not trusting local authorities and not allowing them to get on with the job and the general duties that we have set them. That is why I hope that none of them will be pressed.
 I turn first to the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest on seniority. The reality is that the post will be politically restricted—the relevant provisions are at schedule 2(3). That gives the position some seniority. In defining the post, we are using a similar formulation to that used for directors of social services in section 6 of the Local Authority and Social Services Act 1970, which refers to the appointment of ''an officer''. We should trust local authorities to make appropriate appointments of directors of children's services, taking account of local circumstances and the demands of the job. I do not believe that we should tell local authorities what to do, or that they will appoint people who lack the necessary seniority for what is one of the most crucial local government jobs that we have established in a long time, and which is broadly welcomed. 
 On amendments Nos. 228 and 299, on open competition, again, I do not want to tell local authorities how to take account of their local circumstances in determining who is appropriate to fill the post. Several authorities have appointed from their existing officer cohort, and many of those are the authorities at the leading edge of developing just that cultural change that we all think is so important. One of the unintended consequences of the amendments would be that those people would all have to apply for their job, and we would force open recruitment. That would provide instability just at the time when we want those people to get on with implementing the radical changes and transformation that we are after. 
 I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and say, similarly, that we want innovation and flexibility in what the provision means for services on the ground. To give my local authority as an example, our director of social services happens also to be the director of the primary care trust. That was a rather good synergy in trying to respond more appropriately in that case not just on children's services but on services for adults across boundaries. All sorts of innovations of that nature 
 might take place. Consider leisure and libraries, and how all that can impact on children's lives. We should not here distort, or try to control or dictate, and prevent that innovation from happening on the ground. 
 The duties of the post are clear, as is its importance. We are laying that out in the Bill, but we should allow flexibility at local level for people to do what is best for them. On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Eleanor Laing: I am entirely reassured by what the Minister has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
clause 14, page 11, line 31, at end insert
'including ensuring that one member of senior management includes, within his/her responsibilities, overall responsibility for social services for deafblind children (such as assessments by suitably qualified people and access to specifically trained, one-to-one support workers for children assessed as requiring them)'.
 I rather hope that the Minister has just put away her last sheet of notes, because I fear that she may have something prepared for this amendment. However, if I preface my remarks by saying that I am speaking on behalf of Sense, the deaf-blind charity, I hope that she will be a little more charitable towards an amendment that I can see could be accused of being centralist. 
 The rationale behind the amendment is that the Department of Health issued statutory guidance in 2001 about social services for deaf and blind children and adults which required local authorities to nominate a senior manager responsible for deaf-blind services. The Bill passes responsibility for various guidance issued under the local authority social services legislation to the new directors of children's services. The charity tells me that it is aware of many social services departments that are not delivering the specialist services, assessments and one-to-one support to which deaf-blind children are entitled under the existing guidance, hence the suggestion that a member of senior management should be given a specific responsibility in that respect. However, rather than accepting a centralist proposal, the Minister may be able to make a statement that would help the deaf-blind charity to support children in those difficult circumstances.

Margaret Hodge: I worked with Sense when I had responsibility for disability issues. It does a lot of powerful work on behalf of children and adults who have to overcome considerable barriers to be able to participate fully in society. The amendment is centralist, but perhaps I can comfort the hon. Lady by telling her that there is a set of accountabilities in the way that we will measure children's services authorities and how they deliver services for children. Whether through the inspection framework or the indicators that we determine, that framework of accountability will allow us to identify authorities that are not carrying out their statutory duties, or not abiding by the circulars that have been issued to them. I hope that as the hon. Lady can now take comfort in
 viewing the matter as part of the accountability framework, rather than a centralist duty prescribed by us in Parliament, she will withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her remarks. Specialists working in the field just want to ensure that they are in the best possible position to help children to access services. Fortunately, only a small minority are involved, but they are in a very difficult situation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in
clause 14, page 11, line 34, after '9', insert
'and (children and young people's plans: England)'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 153. 
 Government new clause 20—Children and young people's plans: England. 
 Margaret Hodge: The Whip will not like it, but I must give members of the Committee proper information about the amendments, which are about the planning of services, an important aspect of the delivery of outcomes for children and young people. 
 If we are to have good local planning practice across all services for children and young people, planning by local authorities needs to join up with that of other key partners involved in the agenda for children and young people. To help local authorities to operate more effectively in delivering the outcomes for children and to reduce the bureaucracy for them, the new clause and the amendments propose to rationalise planning by repealing the requirements for seven separate statutory plans. They were introduced for a good reason, but they do not now add up to a coherent package, nor do they allow for sufficient local flexibility. We are also ending the requirements for a range of non-statutory plans for the same reasons. That is the context in which we are introducing a single statutory requirement—a strategic children and young people's plan. It is a new provision, but behind it are our three years of consultation with local authorities and the key organisations involved nationally in plan rationalisation. 
 We started with a project in 2001 working with five local education authorities implementing local education strategies. Encouraged by our evaluation of that project we moved to the notion of a single education plan, which received a very positive response from those authorities. We want to drive that reform further and extend that well-supported approach to the whole range of children's services. We therefore developed the concept of a children and young people's plan, taking account of the proposals for improving services to children and young people which were in our Green Paper and are reflected in the Bill. 
 We have responded positively to Opposition amendments in another place which sought a statutory plan for services for children and young people. We have talked across Government to the Office of the 
 Deputy Prime Minister, the Department of Health and the Home Office, and we have talked to the Local Government Association. We have talked to the voluntary sector, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We have talked to the Churches and to the Learning and Skills Council. In short, we have consulted widely. 
 We intend the children and young people's plan to cover local authority services for children, and to that end we are making it the responsibility of the director of children's services. Amendment No. 136 therefore provides that the director is appointed and that the lead member for children's services, who will be designated under clause 15, will be responsible for developing and implementing the children and young people's plan. 
 This is a strategic plan that will create a bridge between the authority's corporate plans and its more detailed plans at service level. Providing a vital planning element, it will help to improve the integration of children's services. It is only right that the officer and elected member accountable for those services should be responsible for the plan. 
 The core requirement for the plan relates to local authority services for children and young people, but the involvement of other local partners is of fundamental importance. We hope that the plan will link to plans for health services, youth justice, voluntary and community services, Connexions and drugs action for children and young people. Not only do all those plans have to be consistent, but I hope that there will be joint planning. The needs of children and young people must be met holistically. The duty to co-operate in clause 7 is intended to include a duty to plan. Joint planning to improve the well-being of children and young people is a fundamental expression of co-operation. 
 The children and young people's plan will be not only strategic but overarching; it will cover the full range of children's services. It will link upwards to corporate plans and downwards to operational plans. Authorities will still need to plan their services in detail, even though many of the requirements for submission to central Government have been removed. We intend that the plans will determine the outcomes to be achieved for services for children and young people, and the time scale for delivery in the context of the local programmes of change. They should also offer a strategic analysis of issues and set out actions that need to be taken towards the delivery of the five outcomes. 
 This will be a three-year plan, in place in all relevant authorities by April 2006. Those authorities categorised as excellent under the comprehensive performance assessment have a planning freedom that means that they will not need to submit a plan. The plan will be prepared and implemented in consultation with key partners. It will be publicly available, and it will be reviewed by the authority every year.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how she envisages young people being able to participate in the development of the plan?

Margaret Hodge: That will be integral to the involvement of young people in the development, planning, commissioning and delivery of all services in their area. That is implicit in many of the duties in the Bill.
 We will specify the detail in regulations, and because we have not been able to share with hon. Members the draft regulations, we have made available a short paper, which I hope all members of the Committee have received. 
 To reassure hon. Members that we have not thrown the centralist levers to ensure that we achieve cultural change, I say the following: the basis of the plan reassures local partners, many of whom, particularly the voluntary sector, were worried that they might be left out of the planning process. It gives added impetus to co-operation and joint working. 
 An amendment to clause 19 will ensure that the children and young people's plan is taken into account in the inspection of children's services and, in particular, in the joint area review. We have appointed children's services advisers, who will be talking to authorities about their planning, and supporting them in it. They will influence the development of the plan. 
 Amendment No. 153 allows the preparation of a children and young people's plan to be included, as appropriate, in any direction that the Department may issue when it is intervening as a result of poor performance. Once good practice in planning is embedded, we will then consider whether a statutory requirement is still necessary. First, however, we must concentrate on ensuring good practice in planning across the whole of the children's agenda. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in
clause 14, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
 '(7A) A children's service authority in England must ensure that the performance of its functions are supported with ongoing annual programmes of training.'.
 I imagine that I am again at risk of being accused of being centrist. Throughout our discussions with the professionals, including some of the trailblazers, they reported that the most important part of the process was participating in training sessions. Sadly, we know that although money is often provided in the first few years of a project, it then tails away. I am pleased that every local authority in the country currently has money for training programmes. 
 My concern is about what will happen to the training once the original money runs out. I know from my own long background in local government that training is often cut when money is tight. If we really want ongoing improvement in the services for our children, with all agencies working together, the necessity of ongoing training is difficult to argue against. The question is whether that should be addressed in the Bill. We should bear it in mind that clause 9, which I had hoped to discuss before this 
 clause, includes many aspects that would not normally be seen in a Bill. I have had a discussion with the Minister on that very point. 
 My argument is that training can be dealt with in the Bill because the cultural change will take a long time to complete. We would be burying our heads in the sand if we thought that it would be sorted out in a couple of years. In one form or another, the necessity for training should be addressed in the Bill.

Margaret Hodge: Training is crucial; it is central to cultural change. We do not need a reference to it in the Bill, but we will emphasise its importance in our guidance and support to local authorities. We do not need the burden of legislation. We will expect training programmes to be part of the children and young people's plan that we have just talked about, and we are putting together guidance on the role of the director of children's services, which we will share with the hon. Lady. The 150 local change programmes that we are mounting will be supported by advisers, and training will be part of that. We are also developing common core training so that all members of the children's work force share a language and understanding, and can therefore work together.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her response. It would have been helpful to see more of the draft regulations and guidance, but I am reassured by her saying that training will be included. From our point of view, we do not think that any amount of database or computing expertise will be sufficient unless we have training all the way through the children's services. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Joint area reviews

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in
clause 16, page 13, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 138. 
 Amendment No. 45, in 
clause 16, page 13, line 13, at end insert 
 'having regard to reviews already carried out by other persons and bodies'. 
Government amendment No. 139. 
 Amendment No. 69, in 
clause 16, page 13, line 32, after 'consult', insert 'the Children's Commissioner and'. 
Government amendments Nos. 140 to 142. 
 Clause stand part. 
 Amendment No. 70, in
clause 17, page 14, line 31, at end insert 'Children's Commissioner and the'.

Margaret Hodge: My amendments are technical, and I shall respond to any comments on the other amendments if necessary.

Hilton Dawson: My amendments are entirely sensible; they are designed to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has a role in developing the arrangements for the fundamentally important joint area reviews and a framework for inspection. It seems to me that a commissioner whose role is to promote awareness of the interests and views of children should be firmly involved in developing such important work alongside the other extremely worthy people on the list in the clause.

Margaret Hodge: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend wants to achieve. On his amendment concerning the arrangements for joint area reviews, I can tell him that there are about 50 such reviews a year—we are going to carry out 150 in three years. The idea that the commissioner should get involved in precise arrangements, such as which teams go where, is a bit over the top, and does not meet my hon. Friend's objective. It would be incredibly bureaucratic, and it would lead to the wrong focus. I hope that he will let that amendment lie.
 On the amendment relating to the framework, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already developed a draft framework published by Ofsted, which he will have seen, and we want to get on with that. The framework will be established, and the first inspections will start in September 2005, whereas the commissioner, even with our best endeavours, will probably not be appointed before the spring of next year. It would therefore be difficult to engage the commissioner in the first framework. 
 I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that when the Secretary of State gives his consent, which he must, to any amendments or adjustments to future frameworks, he will absolutely ensure that there has been proper consultation with the commissioner so that we can give proper emphasis to children's views as we establish the framework against which services must be inspected. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 138, in 
clause 16, page 13, line 8, leave out from 'State' to end of line 10 and insert— 
 '(a) conduct, in accordance with a timetable drawn up by them and approved by the Secretary of State, a review of children's services provided in— 
 (i) the area of every children's services authority in England; 
 (ii) the areas of such children's services authorities in England as may be specified in the request; 
 (b) conduct a review of such children's services provided in the area of such children's services authority in England as may be specified in the request.'. 
No. 139, in 
clause 16, page 13, line 16, at end insert 
 '(and in particular to evaluate how those services work together to improve their well-being)'. 
 No. 140, in 
clause 16, page 14, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(da) for the provision to members of the public of copies of reports and statements made under paragraphs (c) and (d), and for charging in respect of any such provision;'. 
No. 141, in 
clause 16, page 14, line 10, leave out 'subsection (9)(a) and (b)' and substitute 'subsection (9)'. 
No. 142, in 
clause 16, page 14, line 15, at end add— 
 '(12) Regulations under subsection (9) may make provision authorising or requiring the doing of anything by reference to the determination of a person of a description specified in the regulations.'—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Framework

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in
clause 17, page 14, line 18, at end insert—
 '( ) A children's services authority must make special provision for the inspection of nurseries within its area'.
 If the amendment is not made, there will be no provision for the inspector of children's services to inspect nurseries. I am particularly concerned about nurseries because, by definition, all the children in them are vulnerable because they are so very young. The intention behind the amendment is not to undermine the work of Ofsted, which is, at present, being done extremely well, but to complement it. 
 Recently, much concern has been expressed in the media—quite well-based concern—about safety in nurseries and about the inspection regime. If parents are to have confidence in nurseries, it is essential that there is a tough inspection regime. It therefore seems strange that we have examined all the other work that will be done under the auspices of this part of the Bill, but nurseries have been omitted. I believe that they should be included, because they are an essential part of caring for children.

Margaret Hodge: I reassure the hon. Lady that the framework will ensure that inspections evaluate and report consistently on the extent to which all children's services improve the well-being of children and young people. The framework applies to the inspection of front-line provision, including nurseries, and to joint area reviews. It governs the coverage of inspection and guides its methods, but it does not replace specialist inspection frameworks.
 Ofsted will finish its current inspection of nursery provision next March. The last thing that we want is for parents to worry about the safety of nurseries, so it is worth putting it on the record that Ofsted carried out 23,900 Children's Act inspections of child care provision. Overall, the quality of care was adjudged unsatisfactory in 120 settings—that is 0.5 per cent. In unsatisfactory cases, Ofsted decides on a case-by-case 
 basis what should happen to bring about improvement: as the hon. Lady knows, that can range from enforcement action to the setting of conditions and actions, with a further inspection. 
 Most of those settings, therefore, are absolutely safe and are inspected regularly. However, to address some of the concerns raised by hon. Members, I am having discussions with Ofsted. We are revisiting the framework to see whether it is appropriate and rigorous enough to ensure that children are safe, happy and well cared for in every nursery. If that is not the case, quick action will be taken to ensure that children's safety is protected.

Annette Brooke: The Minister's speech brought to my mind a case in my constituency concerning a sports centre that operated a creche, where something went badly wrong. I wonder whether there is any provision for checking on the sort of creche provided at a public body; one would expect there to be some checks.

Margaret Hodge: I urge the hon. Lady to write to me about the particular case. Any provision that operates for children for two hours or more must be regulated.
Amendment No. 46 is not needed, and I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will withdraw it. I also hope that she joins me in applauding the wonderful work that most nursery workers do in providing a safe, stimulating and happy environment for the children who are entrusted to their care.

Eleanor Laing: I join the Minister in applauding the work done in nurseries, which are an essential part of family life in Britain today. I am entirely reassured by what the Minister said about the content of the framework, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Sections 16 to 18: interpretation

Amendment made: No. 143, in 
clause 19, page 15, line 7, leave out from 'means' to end of line 13 and insert— 
 '(a) anything done for or in relation to children and relevant young persons (alone or with other persons)— 
 (i) in respect of which, apart from section 16, a person or body to which that section applies conducts any kind of assessment, or secures that any kind of assessment is conducted; and 
 (ii) which is specified in, or is of a description prescribed by, regulations made by the Secretary of State; 
 (b) any function under sections 7 and 10 to 15; and 
 (c) any function conferred on a children's services authority under section 9.'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 225

Clause 21Co-operation to improve well-being: Wales

Co-operation to improve well-being: Wales

Amendment made: No. 144, in 
clause 21, page 16, line 7, at end insert 'and emotional well-being'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in
clause 21, page 16, line 25, leave out from 'trust' to 'in' in line 26 and insert 'providing services'

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 116, in
clause 21, page 16, line 26, at end insert— 
 '( ) general practitioners and any other independent provider of health services to children and young people;'. 
Amendment No. 118, in 
clause 23, page 17, line 35, leave out 'most' and insert 'some'. 
Amendment No. 117, in 
clause 23, page 17, line 36, at end insert— 
 '( ) general practitioners and any other independent health provider of services to children and young people;'. 
Government amendment No. 150.

Don Touhig: Government amendments Nos. 145 and 150 are straightforward and are intended as clarification rather than as a change of policy. As it stands, clause 21 places a duty of co-operation on an NHS trust all, or most of whose, hospitals, establishments or facilities are in the area of a local authority. A number of trusts in Wales operate across local authority boundaries, with more services being provided in some areas than in others. In my area, the trust serves five county boroughs in south-east Wales.
 Trusts would not be under the same duty for all local authorities, leaving some local authorities without co-operation from an NHS trust. Amendment No. 145 therefore places a trust under a duty to co-operate with all authorities in whose areas they provide services. Amendment No. 150 to clause 25 is equivalent, setting out that NHS trusts will be members of each local safeguarding children's board in whose areas they provide services. 
 I now turn to the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and will make some brief comments. The majority of general practitioners in Wales are independent contractors and therefore unlike other NHS employees. The duty to co-operate currently applies to, among others, local health boards rather than to individual general practitioners. Local health boards enter into contract with each GP practice in their area and those contracts set out the quality standards to which the practice should aspire. 
 The main purpose of clause 21 is to give a formal basis to the framework planning arrangements for children and young people that my colleague Ministers in the Assembly established in Wales. That requires attendance at the partnerships of bodies with strategic responsibilities such as local health boards, rather than individual practitioners such as GPs. 
 Clause 23 already requires local health boards to discharge their functions
''having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children''. 
It also requires that 
''any services provided by another person'' 
on their behalf 
''are provided having regard to that need.'' 
That means that, in making arrangements for the provision of primary medical services, local health boards must ensure that a contractor, such as a GP, provides services in such a way as to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Locally, each contract may be varied by the agreement of both parties. 
 The Assembly and the Government are content that the new responsibilities of commissioning bodies can be reflected in contracts. The intention of clause 23 is to impose the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children on all NHS trusts in Wales. NHS trusts in England are covered by the equivalent provision in clause 8. Although some Welsh children will be treated by trusts in England, as far as we are aware, no trusts have facilities in both England and Wales. Therefore, there is no advantage to be gained from amendment No. 118. With those points in mind, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) will feel reassured and feel it unnecessary to press her amendments.

Julie Morgan: The three amendments in my name are fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 116 seeks to add GPs to the list of relevant partners of a children's service authority. The purpose of amendment No. 118 is for clause 23 to cover NHS trusts where some, rather than most, of the premises are situated in Wales. Amendment No. 117 inserts GPs into clause 23. If I understood what my hon. Friend said, all those points are covered by his amendments. On that basis, I am happy not to press mine.
 Amendment agreed to.

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
clause 21, page 16, line 42, at end insert—
 '(8A) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before giving guidance under subsection (8) at any time after the coming into force of any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4).'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 205 to 207 and 209.

Don Touhig: I will be brief. However, it is important to put the point on the record. Government amendments Nos. 204 to 207 and 209 reflect our solution to another of the challenges brought about by devolution. They are the outcome of a good deal of discussion between colleagues in London and in the Assembly and they represent a joined-up approach to children's services in Wales, which need to encompass bodies exercising non-devolved functions. There is, therefore, a need for the Government to play an appropriate role in approving the commencement of provisions, the making of regulations and the issue of guidance under part 3 of the Bill.
 It is true that in a different context—this is the other side of the devolution settlement—when it comes to joint working on children's services in Wales, the Assembly is best placed to set the overall direction for services and to take the lead in their provision. Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 and the first part of amendment No. 209 leave responsibility for commencement, making regulations, writing guidance, co-operation and so on with the Assembly, but mean that the Government have to agree so far as the work directly impacts upon and affects bodies exercising non-devolved functions. That is only right and it makes sense. We have had extensive discussions with colleagues in the Assembly. They are content with it, so I am happy to move the amendments.

Roger Williams: I enjoyed the Under-Secretary's explanation about how the amendments came into place. I have heard about devolution through stealth, but never of devolution through mishap. The Bill, as put forward by the Government in its original form, would have given more powers to the Assembly, which we would have welcomed. Indeed, if it were pushed to a vote now, some hon. Members and I would vote for the Bill as it stands, rather than for the Government's amendments. We are disappointed that they have again put aside progress in terms of the devolution settlement. Although we shall accept the amendments in the end, we shall do so with great disappointment.

Hywel Williams: To follow on from what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, as the Bill stands, the National Assembly would have responsibility for non-devolved matters, such as police and probation. However much we on these Benches would like to agree to that, we can see the Government's point of view. That highlights the serious issue that has been behind a number of other discussions that we have had on this Bill in respect of Wales—the split between England and Wales and the Government's apparently sometimes slightly imperfect understanding of the devolution settlement. We could, as the hon. Gentleman said, oppose the amendments. We are somewhat depleted, so we shall not do that. The Under-Secretary is genial and, in this case, modest, and I was in the same position—perhaps even more so—earlier on. I shall leave my comments there.

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentlemen for their comments and I recognise, as I know that they do, that we cannot remake the devolution settlement every time we come to pass additional legislation. However, I give the undertaking that, having agreed this with our colleagues in the Assembly, if there is any way in which it can be improved we shall consider it.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Responsibility for functions under section 21

Amendments made: No. 146, in 
clause 22, page 17, line 7, leave out 'section 21' and insert 
 'sections 21 and (children and young people's plans: Wales)' 
No. 147, in 
clause 22, page 17, line 10, leave out 'that section' and insert 'those sections'. 
No. 148, in 
clause 22, page 17, line 14, leave out 'section 21' and insert 
 'sections 21 and (children and young people's plans: Wales)'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare: Wales

Amendment made: No. 149, in 
clause 23, page 17, line 37, at end insert— 
 '( ) the British Transport Police Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to Wales;'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Information databases: Wales

Amendment made: No. 205, in 
clause 24, page 20, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(11A) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) and (5) may only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State.'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Establishment of LSCBs in WAles

Amendments made: No. 150, in 
clause 25, page 20, line 39, leave out from 'trust' to 'in' in line 40 and insert 'providing services' 
No. 206, in 
clause 25, page 20, line 45, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) that make provision in relation to a Board partner referred to in subsection (3)(a) to (c), (f) or (g) may only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State.'. 
No. 151, in 
clause 25, page 21, line 12, after 'establishment', insert 'and operation'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 229

Clause 28LSCBs in Wales: supplementary

LSCBs in Wales: supplementary

Amendment made: No. 207, in 
clause 28, page 22, line 16, at end add— 
 '(3) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before giving guidance under subsection (2) at any time after the coming into force of any of paragraphs (a) to (c), (f) or (g) of section 25(3).'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 29 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Advisory and support services for family proceedings

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in
 schedule 3, page 42, line 7, at end insert— 
 'In section 12, in subsection (1), after ''in respect of family'', insert ''or immigration''.'. 
I realise that it is late, but this is a probing and serious amendment, which seeks to test the Government's intentions to provide in this Bill and through the most appropriate existing legal framework a statutorily appointed guardian for all unaccompanied and separated children in the United Kingdom, particularly, although not exclusively, those seeking asylum. It also seeks to ensure that the welfare needs of these children are properly safeguarded within the context of their status, as determined by the immigration authorities and the courts, and to ensure that the support and care needs of this especially vulnerable group are met by all agencies charged with those functions. 
 The Committee has not passed earlier amendments to provide safeguards for asylum-seeking children, so in many ways the concept of a children's guardian becomes all the more timely and necessary. It is important to appreciate that the number of new asylum claims from unaccompanied children aged 17 and under, excluding age-disputed cases, was, according to Home Office statistics, 725 for the first quarter of 2004 and 585 for the second quarter. We really are talking about large numbers of children. 
 ''Every child matters'' identifies unaccompanied children as the ''most vulnerable,'' and specifically asks how we can improve support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, building on the work of the 
 children's panel. The Bill does not answer that rather difficult question, and the amendment would offer a solution or at least open the debate on what the solution might be. It is quite clear that a full model of guardianship would need to be worked out carefully and backed by detailed research to ensure a best-practice model that worked in the context of the UK. 
 The children's panel is often quoted as providing a guardianship role for unaccompanied children in the UK, but many professionals believe that that is a misconception. The panel has, without a doubt, played an important role, but the question is whether that is enough. Are these very vulnerable children accessing services in the way that they need to so that they are given the utmost protection after they have reached this country? I believe that we are all concerned about these children receiving that utmost protection while they are here. Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to developing the role of the children's panel to include that of a guardian?

Margaret Hodge: Because of an imminent vote, I must say that we had a lengthy debate on this point, and although I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady outside the Committee, I simply say to her now that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are covered by the Children Act 1989, so they have the same protection for ensuring their safety. I accept that they are a vulnerable group, which is why all the things that I discussed this morning are central to ensuring that they are properly safeguarded when they are in this country.

Annette Brooke: I will accept the Minister's offer to discuss the matter further outside the Room. I sincerely believe that we need to discuss this issue further and develop the role of the children's panel. I know that several professionals in the field are working on this concept right now, so we are back to the assurance that there will be further discussion, albeit informally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Five o'clock until Thursday 21 October at five minutes to Nine o'clock.